U.S. Chamber Ad Cites California Chamber Website To Prove Bills Allocating Cap-And-Trade Revenue Are “Job Killers”

The Chamber’s ad cites CAJobKillers.com, a site run by the California Chamber of Commerce, which lists three of the five bills cited by the Chamber – AB 1186, AB 1532, and SB 1572 – on its “2012 ‘job killer’ list.”

The California Chamber Of Commerce Is A Member Of the U.S. Chamber. [USChamber.com, accessed 10/1/12]

AB 1186 Set Rules For Spending Cap-And-Trade Revenue. From the Sacramento Bee: “Lobbyists for the California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups blocked or neutralized more than 80 percent of the bills on the chamber’s ‘job killer’ list in the just-concluded 2012 legislative session, and would score even higher if Gov. Jerry Brown rejects any of the four measures that reached his desk. […] Three of the survivors, Assembly Bills 1186 and 1532 and Senate Bill 535, set parameters for spending what could be billions of dollars in fees from the state’s new ‘cap-and-trade’ program of curbing greenhouse gas emissions.” [Sacramento Bee, 9/6/12]

AB 1532 Directs Cap-And-Trade Revenue To Clean Energy And Clean Air Projects. From the Sacramento Bee: “AB 1532 would apply to an estimated $1 billion expected to be generated from cap-and-trade auctions in 2012-13. Revenues are expected to grow significantly in future years. AB 1532 would authorize funds generated by the auction of ‘cap and trade’ credits to be spent on projects promoting clean energy, low-carbon transportation, natural resource protection, and for research, development and deployment of innovative technologies to promote cleaner air. Pérez’s legislation also would require the state Air Resources Board to develop an investment plan for the auction revenues every three years. The Legislature would review and could change the ARB plan before adoption.” [Sacramento Bee, 5/29/12]

SB 1572 Allows Cap-And-Trade Revenue To Be Spent On Energy Efficiency And Clean Energy Projects In 2013. From California Energy & Climate Report: “California lawmakers this week advanced legislation that allows the state to spend next year $250 million in estimated revenue from the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade program. The bill includes spending on school and home energy-savings programs, activities to reduce vehicle travel in regions, clean-energy technologies to help specific industries comply with the climate regulation, among other uses. […] Specifically, SB 1572 requires the funds to be allocated into several categories, with conditions: $89 million for K-12 school energy projects; $20 million for public university projects, such as energy efficiency upgrades; $30 million for cleaner energy technology at industrial facilities regulated under the program; $10 million for residential energy efficiency; $4 million for clean energy projects at agriculture facilities; $30 million to reduce transportation-related emissions through land-use planning changes; $12 million to reduce GHG emissions tied to ‘goods movement’; $5 million to lower emissions from school buses; and $30 million for clean-vehicle rebates.” [California Energy & Climate Report via Nexis, 7/8/12]

California Global Warming Solutions Act Of 2006 Already Allows Cap-And-Trade Revenue To Be Collected. According to Forbes.com: “Barring last-minute lawsuits or administrative delays, California’s cap-and-trade program launches on January 1, 2013. The state’s carbon market will be the world’s second largest, after the European Emissions Trading System, and is tasked with supplying 20% of the emissions reductions mandated under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or AB 32. The market launch will be preceded, on November 14, by the first of three state-run auctions scheduled for California’s 2012-13 fiscal year. The countdown to the first emissions allowance auction, and the non-trivial amount of revenue expected to be raised, has grabbed the attention of lawmakers and the governor. The budget plan released by Governor Jerry Brown, in January, projected auction revenues of $1 billion in 2012-13.” [Forbes.com, 4/25/12]

• CA Assembly Speaker: AB 1532 Does Not Carry New Costs For Businesses. From the Sacramento Bee: “Republicans blasted AB 1532 as a new blow to California businesses that have been hit hard by a rocky economy. […] Added Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Marysville: ‘We have to stop looking at our businesses and job creators as a bottomless piggy bank.’ [California Assembly Speaker John A.] Pérez countered that the state already is committed to cap and trade to reduce greenhouse gases, so AB 1532 does not impose new economic pressures on businesses but simply regulates the spending of revenues generated from pollution auctions and gives lawmakers more control over future projects.” [Sacramento Bee, 5/29/12]

California Chamber Of Commerce Bases Criticism Of Bills On The Premise That California’s Global Warming Law Is An “Illegal Tax.” From the California Chamber Of Commerce’s CAJobKillers.com website: “AB 1186 (Skinner; D-Berkeley)/AB 1532 (John A. Pérez; D-Los Angeles)/ AB 2404 (Fuentes; D-Los Angeles)/ SB 535 (De León; D-Los Angeles)/ SB 1572 (Pavley; D-Agoura Hills)  Illegal Tax Increase — Increases energy costs, including fuel prices, on consumers and businesses by allocating funds from an illegal tax to various programs that are not necessary to cost-effectively implement the market-based trading mechanism under AB 32.” [CAJobKillers.com, accessed 10/1/12, emphasis original]

Independently Vetted Study: California’s Economy Will Add Jobs Under Cap-And-Trade Law. From the Los Angeles Times: “California’s overall economy will not suffer, and many parts of it will prosper under the state’s landmark global warming law, according to an analysis by the California Air Resources Board that rebuts an industry-led ballot effort to suspend the regulations. The 103-page report, to be released Wednesday, comes after earlier projections were criticized as flimsy. It was vetted by a panel of independent academics and policy experts. […] A group that includes the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Manufacturers & Technology Assn. and various companies issued a report ahead of Wednesday’s release saying that implementing the climate law could cost the state 485,000 jobs by 2020, a sharp contrast to the air board’s finding that the law would yield a net increase of 10,000 jobs.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/24/12]

• Study: Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Has Added $1.6 Billion To Regional Economy. From the Analysis Group:

In a new report, ‘The Economic Impacts of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative on Ten Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States,’ Analysis Group researchers have quantified the economic benefits from implementation of a multistate regional greenhouse gas initiative. […]

Key findings include:

• The regional economy gains more than $1.6 billion in economic value added (reflecting the difference between total revenues in the overall economy, less the cost to produce goods and services)
• Customers save nearly $1.1 billion on electricity bills, and an additional $174 million on natural gas and heating oil bills, for a total of $1.3 billion in savings over the next decade through installation of energy efficiency measures using funding from RGGI auction proceeds to date
• 16,000 jobs are created region wide
• Reduced demand for fossil fuels keeps more than $765 million in the local economy
• Power plant owners experience $1.6 billion in lower revenue over time, although they overall had higher revenues than costs as a result of RGGI during the 2009-2011 period

[AnalysisGroup.com, 11/15/11]

More “Job Killers”: Internet Privacy And Banning Styrofoam?

The ad also cites SB 761 and AB 568, the latter of which is a law that would prevent shackling of pregnant inmates by requiring the least restrictive restraints possible to be used during transportation, appointments, etc. Presumably the Chamber meant to cite SB 568, a bill introduced by Lowenthal that would ban Styrofoam takeout containers.

SB 761 Would Require Companies To Allow Consumers To Opt Out Of Collection Of Information About Online Usage. From the legislative counsel’s digest of SB 761: “This bill would, no later than July 1, 2012, require the Attorney General, in consultation with the Office of Privacy Protection, to adopt regulations that would require a covered entity, defined as a person or entity doing business in California that collects, uses, or stores online data containing covered information from a consumer in this state, to provide a consumer in California with a method to opt out of that collection, use, and storage of such information. The bill would specify that such information, includes, but is not limited to, the online activity of an individual and other personal information. The bill would subject these regulations to certain requirements, including, but not limited to, a requirement that a covered entity disclose to a consumer certain information relating to its collection, use, and storage information practices. The bill would, to the extent consistent with federal law, prohibit a covered entity from selling, sharing, or transferring a consumer’s covered information, except as specified. The bill would make a covered entity that willfully fails to comply with the adopted regulations liable to a consumer in a civil action for damages, as specified, and would require such an action to be brought within a certain time period.” [CA.gov, accessed 10/1/12, italics original]

SB 568 Would Have Banned Styrofoam Takeout Containers. From Monterey County Weekly: “After passing in the state Senate and surviving two Assembly committees, SB 568—a bill to ban expanded polystyrene (commonly called styrofoam) take-out packaging statewide—failed to pass the Assembly floor on the last day of the legislative session, Aug. 31, by a 26-45 vote. The bill, authored by Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), would have banned the use of styrofoam to-go containers throughout California. Local governments and school districts with at least a 60 percent recycling rate would have been exempt.” [Monterey County Weekly, 9/6/12]

• Over 60 California Jurisdictions Have Banned Styrofoam Food Containers. From ABC affiliate KABC: “ The Hermosa Beach City Council has passed a ban on polystyrene food containers. […] Hermosa Beach joins more than 60 other California cities and counties in banning polystyrene food containers.” [ABCLocal.Go.com, 9/13/12]